Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS
Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly -- An online companion to the weekly television news program
Keyword Search
Topic Index Stories by Week
Home
Current Stories

Perspectives
Profile
Web Exclusive
Survey

Headlines
Election Coverage
Special Issues
TV Schedule
Calendar
Newsletter
Subscribe or unsubscribe to the E-mail Newsletter, or edit your preferences.
The Series
About the Series
Funding
Biographies
Awards
Credits
For Teachers
Overview
Lesson Plan List
Tips
Teacher Resources
Resources
Viewer's Guides
Videotapes
Featured Sites
Feedback
Contact Us
Story Suggestions

PERSPECTIVES:
United Nations Millennium Development
September 16, 2005    Episode no. 903
Read This Week's November 7, 2008
Go
Video - Watch this story
Requires Real Player
BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: World leaders this week held a three-day summit in New York to mark the 60th anniversary of the United Nations. As Kim Lawton reports, religious leaders lobbied hard for expanded commitments to the world's poor.

KIM LAWTON: At Washington's National Cathedral, interfaith leaders held their own summit and issued a joint statement demanding that the UN do more to end poverty. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright joined them.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT (National Democratic Institute): The God who gave us hope about the next life also gave us gifts to use in this one, such as eyes and ears, a conscience and a voice.

Photo of Kofi Annan LAWTON: Five years ago, UN leaders agreed on eight goals to cut poverty and hunger in half, and to combat child mortality and disease -- all by the year 2015. They are called the Millennium Development Goals. As part of that, some countries set a target of giving seven-tenths of one percent of their gross national product for international aid. The U.S. initially did, but now appears to have backed off.

Religious leaders across the spectrum say the UN is way behind in meeting those goals, and they accuse the U.S. of not doing its share. Many were angered by amendments offered by the new U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.

Photo of RICHARD CIZIK Reverend RICHARD CIZIK (vice president, governmental affairs, National Association of Evangelicals): I would say today to Ambassador Bolton, "Remember, poverty from our point of view must be a central concern of American foreign policy. And so, will you keep your commitments?"

LAWTON: In his UN speech on Wednesday, President Bush said the U.S. remains dedicated to helping the world's poor.

President GEORGE W. BUSH: We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals. We have a moral obligation to help others and a moral duty to make sure our actions are effective.

LAWTON: Religious groups say they will continue pushing the UN and the U.S. to do just that.

* * *

Joining me now with more on this is Father Drew Christiansen, editor-in-chief of the Jesuit magazine AMERICA and co-author of the book FORGIVENESS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS.

Father Christiansen, there seemed to be some conflicting signals all this week. How do we end up? Is the UN committed to meeting these goals to end poverty?

Continue to top of next colum
Tools:
E-Mail this article
Resources
Reverend DREW CHRISTIANSEN (editor-in-chief, AMERICA magazine): I think the UN is much further along than it was a month ago when Ambassador Bolton presented his objections. About a month ago the whole process was thrown into disarray, and it looked like everything was about to be renegotiated. Now I think the UN has committed itself to relief of poverty, and President Bush has signed the U.S. up to that same goal of an end to world poverty. But I think we've made considerable progress. The real question is what specific policies that will involve for all the countries concerned.

Video - Watch this story
Requires Real Player
LAWTON: Why was the U.S. initially seeming to pull back or object to some of the promises?

Rev. CHRISTIANSEN: Well, I think there are those within the administration who are allergic to any kind of international commitments. And there was a lot of fear that Third World countries and the non-governmental organizations that were advocates for the poor in the world were putting so much stress on particular targets for the relief of poverty that the U.S. would be bound in inconvenient ways for the administration. And so they were trying to back off from that.

LAWTON: The president eventually, though, did sign on, so does it look like things are, then -- the U.S. commitment is solid?

Photo of DREW CHRISTIANSEN Rev. CHRISTIANSEN: Well, I think the president is for the relief of world poverty. [It is] not clear where people around him -- like Mr. Bolton -- are that are generally opposed to international commitments. And although the president has made some very unique commitments, the government has not been effective in kind of implementing them. And so I think a lot of countries around the world, including our allies, are asking how much will the U.S. really commit to this process, and how soon will they do it?

LAWTON: And very briefly, is there a concern that all the attention to Katrina relief may divert some of this international aid?

Rev. CHRISTIANSEN: I think so. Especially people who have always wanted an excuse to avoid international aid will use Katrina as a way to do that. I think the answer is we just have to get our fiscal house in order so we can meet both our domestic and our international commitments.

LAWTON: Okay. Father Drew Christiansen, thank you.

Rev. CHRISTIANSEN: Thank you, Kim.

Did you like this story? How can we improve our program or Web site?
Resources






TOP